The Best (and cheapest) Plane in the Game: Tupolev 204

[SulphurTX]

Hello, I think I'm almost the only company who's using the Tupolev 204 on a big scale. I know there is a prejudice about the Sovjet-planes.... But I do have 20 of these Russian planes with an extra order for 10 more. The Tupolev is almost the same as an Boeing 757-200. A bit less passenger capacity, a bit more fuel, but for the rest it's the same. There is only one BIG difference! The price! I think that makes the Tupolev 204 a great plane in the game for medium distances up to 1600 nm. So I'm stunned to see that there are only 33 planes of this type in the WHOLE game.

5 reasons to order your new Tupolev 204 now:

- it's cheap (lease is $300.000/month and for example B757-200 is $800.000/month) 
- big capacity (standard 156 economy, 15 business) 
- short waiting list because nobody orders this plane 
- very good for short, high-capacity routes (max. 1600 nm) 
- fast (0,78 mach) 

What's your opinion about the plane?

[blair21088]

The extra fuel use maes a difference, but the killer for all the Russian planes is the extremely high maintenance costs. compare the costs of the various checks between the two and see what i mean.

[SulphurTX]

Hi, a short view on my line maintenance costs... When you use a NEW, modern (1-8 years) Tupolev 204 it's still VERY cheap!

Tupolev 204

Sold tickets                     859 824 USD
Line maintenance (A+B)    -16 626 USD
Insurance                            -13 058 USD
Fuel cost                            -46 641 USD
Route fees (1)                    -216 790 USD
Weekly leasing cost            -68 634 USD
Total                              498 075 USD

Boeing 757-200

Sold tickets                  1 096 231 USD
Line maintenance (A+B)    -11 709 USD
Insurance                            -31 920 USD
Fuel cost                            -52 672 USD
Route fees (1)                    -257 006 USD
Weekly leasing cost            -199 098 USD
Total                                  543 826 USD

[Sigma]

It's a good plane only because it's available far more easily and has less upfront costs.  That's it.  It lacks in everything else compared to the 757; especially in range which is barely half that of the 752.  The Tu204 can't even do decent Domestic service in the US as its range is way too low to make it cross-country; outclassed by even some regional jets.

A 752 seats about 10% more passengers.
A 752 consumes about 20% less fuel
A 752 can carry those passengers almost twice as far.

The added pax and less fuel alone is a staggering difference.  When fuel prices eclipse $1000, the better economy and more pax is the difference between losing money and making a lot of profit.

One must also consider the high costs of C/D checks as well.  The major maintenances cost as much as twice as much on Russian planes as their Western counterparts and it only grows as they get older.  The difference can easily eclipse $15M+ over the life of the plane.

Yeah, the high upfront cost of a 757 is a factor, but I don't particularly agree that the 757 is a good comparison anyway.   Of course the 757, a medium-range hauler, is expensive when compared to a short-range plane.

Frankly, with the range of the Tu204 being so low it's in a completely different class of aircraft, and it is far more of an equal comparison to put it up against a 737-400.  You would ideally never put a 757 on a route that a 204 is flying on -- that's what your 737s are for.  The 757 are for the longer routes that the Tu204 can't fly anyways, so it'll never be a fair economic comparison because the 757 was never meant to fly a route that the 204 can; and, yeah, the 757 isn't gonna look too good when looking at it's economic performance on short-haul routes.  It's like comparing an A300 to an A340 -- yeah, my A300s cost half as much and carry just as many people, but that's missing the entire point that the A340 is designed to go twice as far.  You'd never put an A340 on a route you'd put an A300 on if you could help it, it wouldn't make fiscal sense.

Compared to the 737-400, it's not even a contest.

A 734 seats about 10% fewer pax, so you lose revenue, BUT
A 734 uses a full 35% less fuel
A 734 still manages to have significantly more range than the Tu204, in the range of 200-1000NM more
A 734 takes only HALF the turnaround time (which can easily make up for the 10% fewer pax in many cases)
A 734 requires 1200ft less runway to land, the Tu204 runway req limits its capacity at many locations, reducing its pax advantage greatly
A 734 requires 20% less flight attendant staff
A 734 is much closer in costs and, after consider major maintenances, will likely cost less in fixed costs than a TU204 and save many tens of millions more in variable costs

Many airlines have done quite well in the game by using leased Tu204s early in a game at a time of rapid expansion.  But the key is to dump them (which is why you don't purchase them, you'll never sell them) when fuel prices begin to skyrocket.  If your competition is minimal and you can keep load factors north of 70% you can even survive when fuel is high.  But any competition on a route will immediately outclass you (unless they're pitting 204s against you too) and be able to out-price you by a significant margin and still turn a profit.

[ali5541]

Come on Sigma, you didn't have to break the guys confidence and his love for that plane. But very well said, and I couldn't agree more! Nice Job!

[SulphurTX]

Hmmm... Maybe you've got something there... Anyone wants to buy 35 Tupolev 204's? 

[Sigma]

Hey, like I said, many-a large carrier has started the game with 204s.

While everyone else is paying a lot more and waiting a LOT longer for their planes, the Tupolev buyer is buying 50% more planes for their money and getting them exponentially faster.  Meaning that you can put, easily, 6 times as many planes out there as someone waiting for their beloved 737s.  Not only because you can buy more because they're cheaper, but since you get them faster you start earning more money faster which means you can buy even more faster than the guy who's still waiting for his first delivery.  By the time they get their planes you're already a dominant presence on the market and they're fighting over your scraps.

It's a very, very good business model.  The key is use them where they're good at (i.e. if you've got a lot of nearby destinations, in the 1000NM range) to dump the things before fuel gets crazy.  And ideally don't purchase them unless you know you can get a solid 10-12 years use out of them.  Don't fly routes that are too short as their turnaround time is inefficient (unless procuring another type of aircraft would be detrimental to your commonality), you can get more turns out of other planes.  Shoot for the 1000-1200NM range if at all possible.

And, now that games are longer, who cares what your first planes are.  You're going to have to replace them before the end of the game anyways.  So you can choose to either replace them in the latter 10 years of the game or the first 10 years.  Why not buy planes you don't "want" at first, use them for what they're good at (disposable marketshare claimers) and then replace them in such a time that whatever you replace them with you won't need to replace before the game ends.

I've done a similar thing in my Modern Times game.  While everyone else was waiting many years for the delivery of A320s and its varying sister models, I went with A310s.  In my case it's actually the opposite of your Tupolevs in that those planes cost a lot more but with the same intended result -- I got all the planes I wanted in months, rather than years.   By the time my competition got their planes, there were fewer dense (i.e. super-profitable) routes to put them on that my A310s weren't already sitting on.  The deliveries they had waited years to receive started pouring in faster than they could find good homes for them and more and more domestic carriers have BK'd, while I've sat near the top of the profitability rankings the whole time; never even had to touch my pricing.  And, now, I've gone and placed a $3B cash order for A321s to replace my A310s; which are much cheaper to operate and will pay for themselves before even their first D-Check once fuel skyrockets.  And since I waited until everyone BKd, I don't even have to wait years for my A321s as they opened schedule holes for me.

The good thing about my method is that, while I was only able to acquire fewer planes because of their pricing, I was able to get 'dibs' on the routes that I wanted first, so I maximized my efficiencies.  And, unlike replacing 204s which leaves you with a largely useless plane, when I replace my A310s with A321s, I've freed up my A310s to either be sold (and they'll sell, as opposed to a less attractive plane) or, more importantly, use on some international routes and tackle the competition there that I've ignored.  I'm not stuck with a plane I have no need for anymore, I can actually put it to work doing what it was created to do all along.

[Dasha]

For domestic routes in the EU, that plane is simply God... it's cheaper and bigger than the A320 and 737, even when you take maintenance and fuel costs into account.

For a large international airline you would simple not take them for the fleet commonality but if you are based in for example ZRH and you only want to fly Europe, that is your plane. Same if you are based in the middle of the US, like Denver, that plane can fly all the domestic routes you want. It can't fly from LAX to JFK but with a tech stop it's still cheaper than the Western equivalent.

You fly an A320 from LAX to JFK once a day and fill it up with a small route. The 204 in whatever version does it on a day as well with a tech stop but can't have another small route.

If you have a strategic hub and are a little good at math, you will see that it's similar to the 737 or A320 as there is a version with I think RR or PW engines. Maybe the maintenance costs are a little higher too. The only GREAT downside to this plane is the turn around time. That is simply stupid. I think it takes 90 minutes or something to get the chance on delay at 1%.
Also you need 1 more cabin crew to carry the wodka through the plane

So it's not the best or cheapest plane in the world but it COULD be if you have a good hub for it.

[Talentz]

For a large international airline you would simple not take them for the fleet commonality but if you are based in for example ZRH and you only want to fly Europe, that is your plane.

Im based in ZRH and didn't choose the Tu 204 ... Md-80s have a higher operating profit margin. Plus, heavy competition makes the 204 faults more apparent. Maybe if your all alone it would be a great aircraft.. but.. then again.. any aircraft would be as well


- Talentz

[Dasha]

Im not going to convince you about my right and have you buy all my Tupolevs but let me give you a hint...


Waiting times for production lists...

[bleedfax18]

Waiting times for production lists...

Those are not bad for the MD-80's, at least in "The Modern Times".

[JonesyUK]

In the Euro game you can get any plane you want in 3 months 

[L1011fan]

I am really glad it works for you and your operations. I have to admit I'm not big on the Russian aircraft, although I've used a couple of YAK-42's a time or two. But I am glad they fit well for you! I see some spoilers already had to point out flaws, but if you're happy with them, your company is making money, then you use them!!!